Why are writers spineless?
Why do we censor our own writing? I state it this way because every writer does; every writer has their own wall, their own lines they won't cross.
Is there a "place you won't go", even if a piece starts leaning in a direction that would benefit by going over some self/societally imposed "edge"? For instance: anything involving a child that may involve sex, (reverse) racial tension, so on. Especially written from the point of view of the "non-desirable." In short, making the despised "ok". And I don't mean the ambiguous serial killer/no-conscience villain. I mean a sympathetic protagonist.
If art is supposed to imitate life, truly, these subjects would not be taboo, as they happen. The perpetrators of unspeakable crimes are sympathetic/loved by somebody. Rape seems to be touchable, but only if the heroine rebounds and gets revenge, and so on. Nobody seems to tackle the tough subjects from the view of the perpetrator, or even from a victim that doesn't get some kind of victory, as indirect or small as it may be. That is not always the case, in fact I'd venture to say it's rarely the case.
Has political correctness fully taken over? Or, similarly, has an international consciousness decided that some subjects are off limits, for the betterment of some imagined conglomerate of the mind? Or is it more sinister - the powers that publish refuse to consider such work?
Personally, I'm not sure I'd like to read something along the lines of child exploitation that isn't a redeemable story, but shouldn't art, of any medium, serve to bring to light all facets of humanity? Whether desirable or not?
Or should it curtail itself to fit the modicum of what society says is acceptable?
It's easy to say fuck society, but unless you really do by throwing its morays aside, are you really a true artist?
I think that's like 50 questions in one post, that should suffice. Riff on, you self-censoring pushovers.
Is there a "place you won't go", even if a piece starts leaning in a direction that would benefit by going over some self/societally imposed "edge"? For instance: anything involving a child that may involve sex, (reverse) racial tension, so on. Especially written from the point of view of the "non-desirable." In short, making the despised "ok". And I don't mean the ambiguous serial killer/no-conscience villain. I mean a sympathetic protagonist.
If art is supposed to imitate life, truly, these subjects would not be taboo, as they happen. The perpetrators of unspeakable crimes are sympathetic/loved by somebody. Rape seems to be touchable, but only if the heroine rebounds and gets revenge, and so on. Nobody seems to tackle the tough subjects from the view of the perpetrator, or even from a victim that doesn't get some kind of victory, as indirect or small as it may be. That is not always the case, in fact I'd venture to say it's rarely the case.
Has political correctness fully taken over? Or, similarly, has an international consciousness decided that some subjects are off limits, for the betterment of some imagined conglomerate of the mind? Or is it more sinister - the powers that publish refuse to consider such work?
Personally, I'm not sure I'd like to read something along the lines of child exploitation that isn't a redeemable story, but shouldn't art, of any medium, serve to bring to light all facets of humanity? Whether desirable or not?
Or should it curtail itself to fit the modicum of what society says is acceptable?
It's easy to say fuck society, but unless you really do by throwing its morays aside, are you really a true artist?
I think that's like 50 questions in one post, that should suffice. Riff on, you self-censoring pushovers.
Comments158
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Yes. I just don't know why.
I write YA, which is possibly one of the most controversial places to write right now, simply because there are gatekeepers -- parents, teachers, booksellers, librarians -- who have their own lines that in which they'd like YA authors to write. (Which isn't to say there aren't TONS AND TONS of amazing gatekeepers out there, BUT, as they say, it only takes one rotten apple...)
Personally, I know that the book I'm currently querying crosses a lot of these lines, and that several books I'm working on cross lines. Things like language, religion, violence, sex can cause a stir. And I'm okay with this. And I'd like to say that if a story needs to say something, I'll say it. But I know at some point in my career, I'll find something I can't do.
I also want to point out that any story that crosses a line just for the sake of it, to call itself "edgy" or appear cool, well, it's ridiculously obvious. Your readers will smell it and find it insincere and obnoxious. Don't try to be edgy on purpose.
Personally, I know that the book I'm currently querying crosses a lot of these lines, and that several books I'm working on cross lines. Things like language, religion, violence, sex can cause a stir. And I'm okay with this. And I'd like to say that if a story needs to say something, I'll say it. But I know at some point in my career, I'll find something I can't do.
I also want to point out that any story that crosses a line just for the sake of it, to call itself "edgy" or appear cool, well, it's ridiculously obvious. Your readers will smell it and find it insincere and obnoxious. Don't try to be edgy on purpose.
I think it depends on the writer I don't censor what I write.
I don't think I'm spineless. I'll write about anything, just like I'll talk about anything. But I do like to thoroughly research a new topic I plan on writing about, just so I don't make a mistake on something vital. That, and I have this insatiable thirst to learn everything about everything.
I wrote a short story in grade school. It was about an orphanage and murder and rape and children. It was just a story. Yes, it was highly frowned upon, the content "for my age," to have been written in such detail landed me in counseling - but I got a good grade. I was deemed as, "A disturbed young girl who ought not write about such things!"
I was thirteen.
Needless to say, it was never published.
I don't believe I am spineless.
I was thirteen.
Needless to say, it was never published.
I don't believe I am spineless.
Yeah, that's definitely a shootoff argument, maybe the thread could have been titled "why are writers so scared?" - there are obviously many answers to that. And the reasons definitely give us writers pause...which they shouldn't. That is part of my spineless claim - we've been taught to be scared...what the fuck is that about?
I got into similar trouble with early writings & art/comics of mine in school. Luckily I was right before the full-on PC movement, otherwise I would have been in real trouble. Sorry that happened to you, it's bullshit.
You may want to look them up, but there have been many similar cases in the past decade - most are in the states, but should be easily searchable.
Would make a badass article for a real magazine...hmm.
I got into similar trouble with early writings & art/comics of mine in school. Luckily I was right before the full-on PC movement, otherwise I would have been in real trouble. Sorry that happened to you, it's bullshit.
You may want to look them up, but there have been many similar cases in the past decade - most are in the states, but should be easily searchable.
Would make a badass article for a real magazine...hmm.
[link] -- there's your rape narrative.
I also replied on that post and kind of answered some of your questions there.
I also replied on that post and kind of answered some of your questions there.
Interesting, never heard of that game. One thing I did notice in the comments is that a lot of posters felt it was a rape without context, which made it "worse." That's certainly a track worth exploring - so if something abhorrent is present with proper context, now it's ok? aka, I Spit On Your Grave.
Yeah, well, I thought there was plenty of context. It's a very minimalistic and sad story, but as far as I can make it out, it goes like this: guy goes through a war (I don't remember if they explicitly called it Vietnam), is surrounded by death and violence, and for whatever reason (this is actually never explored, but I didn't feel that was a big hole) rapes a defenseless girl. He goes back to civil life, and many decades later, as a taxi driver, feels the inner demon resurface. So he drives around until he sees a "special lady", whom he then beats up and rapes. He carries her home, drugs her, and then finally comes to his senses and shoots himself. (This is one of the approximately five different playthroughs you can have. You can resist the second rape, but that is kinda dull)
I think that's plenty context. That doesn't make the hero sympathetic at all, at least not to me. And that at least superficially you need to *do* all these things yourself does make the whole thing feel quite a bit worse, so I do think this fits the description of the thing you were asking for: something actually horribly transgressive with no attempt made to redeem anyone or anything. Hell if you want to, you can have a third rape there in your apartment, with the woman drugged. If you decide to do that, the game fades out and ends on a shot of your character cruising the night streets in his cab, looking for more special ladies.
I think that's plenty context. That doesn't make the hero sympathetic at all, at least not to me. And that at least superficially you need to *do* all these things yourself does make the whole thing feel quite a bit worse, so I do think this fits the description of the thing you were asking for: something actually horribly transgressive with no attempt made to redeem anyone or anything. Hell if you want to, you can have a third rape there in your apartment, with the woman drugged. If you decide to do that, the game fades out and ends on a shot of your character cruising the night streets in his cab, looking for more special ladies.
wow!
Crazy find...and apparentely the posters who claimed there was no context didn't "get it". Though, maybe that was largely by choice.
Still, it didn't stop the programmer from making the game. And to me, the game is art.
It even sounds like it would make a great short story/novella if fleshed out (kinda "taxi driver"-ish.) Dark, yes, depressing, maybe, but it still sounds engaging.
Crazy find...and apparentely the posters who claimed there was no context didn't "get it". Though, maybe that was largely by choice.
Still, it didn't stop the programmer from making the game. And to me, the game is art.
It even sounds like it would make a great short story/novella if fleshed out (kinda "taxi driver"-ish.) Dark, yes, depressing, maybe, but it still sounds engaging.
*presented
If you have social proscriptions against certain things, and you write, your characters, whose goal it is to be as human as you, should have them too. As far as nutting up and doing something racey, it'd have to be in the character's personality, and if ALL they did was break taboo, well, no one would want to read it. BUT as far as generic nut-ups, like killing characters off, some people just get attached to their babies, and I understand it. 
A writer writes based on what he/she wants to tell and how he/she wants to tell it. It isn't "spineless" to not necessarily want to do certain things. If I wanted to write a story or poem about rape or child molestation, i could, and if I wanted to, I could make it extremely graphic. I'm not saying I never will.
I just put up a poem about mastrubation in my gallery and it isn't smut (in my opinion). I wrote it the way I wanted to because it was the image I wanted to represent. Was it wrong of me to not include specifics, or blatantly describe the act? Someone could do that if they wanted to. I didn't want to. Maybe I will someday.
Nothing should ever be written simply because it's new, controversial, cutting-edge, or incredibly daring. Literature, in my opinion, should be written because it tells a story, entertains, or makes a point. There are probably some others, but it could potentially go on forever.
Another thing: Imagination, on its own, doesn't necessarily make a good piece of literature. Pure, wild imagination can lead to some incredibly creative, incredibly idiotic stuff.
I just put up a poem about mastrubation in my gallery and it isn't smut (in my opinion). I wrote it the way I wanted to because it was the image I wanted to represent. Was it wrong of me to not include specifics, or blatantly describe the act? Someone could do that if they wanted to. I didn't want to. Maybe I will someday.
Nothing should ever be written simply because it's new, controversial, cutting-edge, or incredibly daring. Literature, in my opinion, should be written because it tells a story, entertains, or makes a point. There are probably some others, but it could potentially go on forever.
Another thing: Imagination, on its own, doesn't necessarily make a good piece of literature. Pure, wild imagination can lead to some incredibly creative, incredibly idiotic stuff.
incredibly creative,and even incredibly idiotic stuff, can sometimes be very, very good.
William S. Burroughs comes to mind for starters. Haruki Murakami. Some Clive Barker stuff.
For movies, Being John Malkovich. Memento probably looked terrible on paper.
Hostel 2, however, is an example of a writer not holding back and winding up with incredibly idiotic "stuff."
and so on. There are probably older, better examples of things with a cult following that are "good" incredibly idiotic, but you get the point hopefully.
And though "rape" and "child molestation" would be possible examples of what I'm talking about, they don't have to be the only examples, jesus people, can't you even be creative with your examples of imaginations gone wild?
William S. Burroughs comes to mind for starters. Haruki Murakami. Some Clive Barker stuff.
For movies, Being John Malkovich. Memento probably looked terrible on paper.
Hostel 2, however, is an example of a writer not holding back and winding up with incredibly idiotic "stuff."
and so on. There are probably older, better examples of things with a cult following that are "good" incredibly idiotic, but you get the point hopefully.
And though "rape" and "child molestation" would be possible examples of what I'm talking about, they don't have to be the only examples, jesus people, can't you even be creative with your examples of imaginations gone wild?
oh god this was a good read. hey forums.
Writers write for two reasons: for themselves and for their readers.
Unnecessary (from a survival point of view) activities such as writing and reading are usually prompted by some kind of gratification you feel in the process. Most people will argue they do not feel gratified by things/ideas/images that disturb them (which also accounts for the sad number of people capable of carrying on with they petty lives ignoring those who suffer around them).
I think this will pretty much answer your question: most writers simply don't write about things they don't like and that their readers and publishers won't like either.
As for me personally, I find the "disturbing" and "unsaid" intellectually fascinating if handled with mastery. It is more challenging and eye-opening because it forces you to face facets of reality you are afraid of. The problem is that it takes very little to fall from masterfully intense to pure trash. Shocker for shocker's sake does not appeal to me. But a skillfully crafted piece of art that revolves around strong themes is a bonus for me. Personally, I consider Lolita, A Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting among the best books I ever read - under every possible aspect. And no, I'm neither a sociopath nor a repressed hypocrite in search for forbidden thrills.
Unnecessary (from a survival point of view) activities such as writing and reading are usually prompted by some kind of gratification you feel in the process. Most people will argue they do not feel gratified by things/ideas/images that disturb them (which also accounts for the sad number of people capable of carrying on with they petty lives ignoring those who suffer around them).
I think this will pretty much answer your question: most writers simply don't write about things they don't like and that their readers and publishers won't like either.
As for me personally, I find the "disturbing" and "unsaid" intellectually fascinating if handled with mastery. It is more challenging and eye-opening because it forces you to face facets of reality you are afraid of. The problem is that it takes very little to fall from masterfully intense to pure trash. Shocker for shocker's sake does not appeal to me. But a skillfully crafted piece of art that revolves around strong themes is a bonus for me. Personally, I consider Lolita, A Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting among the best books I ever read - under every possible aspect. And no, I'm neither a sociopath nor a repressed hypocrite in search for forbidden thrills.
The Vanishing Act of Esme Lennox by Maggie O'Farrell, where "Scottish propriety conceals rape and murder, torture, hypocrisy and violent sex" (The Guardian). Where, as put mildly by the Washington Post, "at the heart of this fantastic new novel is a mystery you want to solve until you start to suspect the truth, and then you read on in a panic, horrified that you may be right"?
We Need to Talk About Kevin, by Lionel Shriver, where a mother writes to her estranged husband about their son, who murdered seven classmates, his favorite teacher, and a cafeteria worker; while she openly admits having regretted giving birth to him from his first breath and for everyday thereafter, and blames her husband for seeing his son as an angel-incarnate?
Bully, by Jim Schutze, that "concerns the plot to murder the title character, in revenge for his continual abuse and psychological torture of others" (Wikipedia)?
Close Range, by Annie Proulx, where dead bodies of missing women can be found in an attic, because "when you live a long way out, you make your own fun"; and where lonely cowboys with families turn to homosexuality and end up murdered for it?
Are David McKenna and Robert Siegel, who wrote the screenplays for American History X and The Wrestler respectively, spineless writers as well? Or do they not count because scripts are not part of literature, be they 'taboo-breaking'?
Art is not meant to imitate life, it's meant to transcend it. The artist takes life, chews it up and spits it out, morphing it into shapes so far indistinguishable and giving it back for all to see, as they haven't seen it before.
It's not because you didn't hear them that there are no fresh voices.
We Need to Talk About Kevin, by Lionel Shriver, where a mother writes to her estranged husband about their son, who murdered seven classmates, his favorite teacher, and a cafeteria worker; while she openly admits having regretted giving birth to him from his first breath and for everyday thereafter, and blames her husband for seeing his son as an angel-incarnate?
Bully, by Jim Schutze, that "concerns the plot to murder the title character, in revenge for his continual abuse and psychological torture of others" (Wikipedia)?
Close Range, by Annie Proulx, where dead bodies of missing women can be found in an attic, because "when you live a long way out, you make your own fun"; and where lonely cowboys with families turn to homosexuality and end up murdered for it?
Are David McKenna and Robert Siegel, who wrote the screenplays for American History X and The Wrestler respectively, spineless writers as well? Or do they not count because scripts are not part of literature, be they 'taboo-breaking'?
Art is not meant to imitate life, it's meant to transcend it. The artist takes life, chews it up and spits it out, morphing it into shapes so far indistinguishable and giving it back for all to see, as they haven't seen it before.
It's not because you didn't hear them that there are no fresh voices.
I usually hold it against myself not to add something. I either give or don't comment.
But in all honesty you just read my mind. Something I've been thinking about for a long time.
But in all honesty you just read my mind. Something I've been thinking about for a long time.
A true artist? What is that?
The problem isn't a lack of spine, it's a lack of passion. Passion and purpose.
Self-censorship, and even societal censorship, is only an issue when passion and purpose are lacking.
If you are swayed from your writing by fear of censure, then how much passion do you have for the subject? How strongly do you believe in what you are writing?
When you have passion and purpose, decisions are based on the intended effect rather than a fear of censure.
Places I don't go in stories and poems? Certainly.
Different reasons for different subjects at different times. One day it might be a sleeping bear I'm afraid to disturb, the next a rabbit nibbling grass. The day after it might be a bloated corpse with entrails strewn around. Or it might be a bare-limbed lady bathing in a stream.
Then again, I might poke the bear, shoot the rabbit, eat the corpse, and ... umm... offer the lady a towel.
There are places I don't go in stories and there are places I do go, but from story to story,poem to poem they interchange.
Things that matter - passion, purpose, intended effect.
Things that don't - everything else.
The problem isn't a lack of spine, it's a lack of passion. Passion and purpose.
Self-censorship, and even societal censorship, is only an issue when passion and purpose are lacking.
If you are swayed from your writing by fear of censure, then how much passion do you have for the subject? How strongly do you believe in what you are writing?
When you have passion and purpose, decisions are based on the intended effect rather than a fear of censure.
Places I don't go in stories and poems? Certainly.
Different reasons for different subjects at different times. One day it might be a sleeping bear I'm afraid to disturb, the next a rabbit nibbling grass. The day after it might be a bloated corpse with entrails strewn around. Or it might be a bare-limbed lady bathing in a stream.
Then again, I might poke the bear, shoot the rabbit, eat the corpse, and ... umm... offer the lady a towel.
There are places I don't go in stories and there are places I do go, but from story to story,poem to poem they interchange.
Things that matter - passion, purpose, intended effect.
Things that don't - everything else.
Literacy!
Haha True !
Difficult to achieve anything in writing without it.
Consider though -
What makes a writer expend the energy and effort to learn new skills and improve them when they are free not to?
What motivates a story?
Why write in a certain style, choose a particular technique, include a scene, create a metaphor?
Difficult to achieve anything in writing without it.
Consider though -
What makes a writer expend the energy and effort to learn new skills and improve them when they are free not to?
What motivates a story?
Why write in a certain style, choose a particular technique, include a scene, create a metaphor?
Royalties?
(these one-word answers brought to you by my limited vocabulary and your local Ford dealer)
(these one-word answers brought to you by my limited vocabulary and your local Ford dealer)
Literary Lotto !
Word Wampum!